Platform

One coordinator workflow, from protocol to screening list.

Understand the eligibility, organize the screening, and watch what enrollment does about it. The three components share one agreed reading of eligibility, so the work stays attached to the protocol rather than scattering across spreadsheets and email threads.

Protocol Reading

Eligibility criteria, assessments, and visit schedules from a Crohn's or UC protocol, resolved into a model the study team can check clause by clause.

  • CDAI, Mayo & SES-CD thresholds written out
  • Prior biologic and immunomodulator rules
  • Editable summaries with clause references
Explore

TrialFit

Candidate profiles your team supplies, compared against the eligibility your team signed off on, with the reasoning shown beside every score.

  • Scores with visible reasoning
  • The next item to verify
  • Grouping by GI site
Explore

Recruitment Analytics

Enrollment against plan, GI site throughput, and the distribution of screen-failure reasons, measured while the study is still running.

  • Enrollment against plan
  • Screen-failure patterns
  • Projection modelling
Explore
Worked example

Inside the workspace.

TrialFlow workspace

Worked example

Protocol Reading

Populated with a fictional IBD study for demonstration.

Study

IndicationCrohn's Disease
PopulationModerate-to-severe
PhasePhase III
DocumentCD-3021_crohns_protocol.pdf

Eligibility

Age 18–75 at screening

Endoscopically confirmed CD ≥ 3 months

CDAI 220–450 with SES-CD ≥ 6

Inadequate response to a biologic or immunomodulator

Exclusions

Bowel resection within 6 months

Ostomy or short bowel syndrome

Active abdominal abscess or C. difficile

Isolated perianal-only disease

Output status

Showing a pre-generated summary. Nothing is uploaded or processed here.

Worked example — a static preview of the workspace. It does not connect to hospital records and does not process real patient data.

By setting

How the three components land in each IBD setting.

The components do not change. What each team needs out of them does.

Fig. AAcademic IBD centers

Several Crohn's and UC protocols compete for the same referral stream. The workspace holds one agreed reading per protocol so interpretation does not drift between investigators.

  • Cross-protocol scoring — one candidate profile checked against every open IBD study
  • Shared review notes and sign-off history on each agreed set of criteria
  • Coordinator effort reported per protocol, not per site
Read the full use case

Fig. BGI sponsors & CROs

The question is how much of the IBD population an entry threshold removes, and whether that shows up during design or six months into enrollment.

  • Criteria-tightness signals on endoscopic floors, washout windows and biologic-exposure caps
  • Side-by-side scoring of two draft versions of an inclusion rule
  • Screen-failure reasons pooled across sites for amendment decisions
Read the full use case

Fig. CCommunity gastroenterology

One coordinator, one open study, and limited research time. Output has to be short, ordered, and immediately actionable in clinic.

  • Plain-language eligibility summary with every clause traceable to the protocol text
  • Ranked shortlist with a single next verification step per candidate
  • Realistic monthly screening capacity to report back to the sponsor
Read the full use case
Principles

What the system will not do.

A person signs off on every reading

What we produce is a draft. It is not a clinical or eligibility decision, and nothing downstream runs until someone signs it off.

Written for how GI teams work

Built around the actual sequence coordinators, IBD study managers, and CRO teams already follow.

No connection to hospital records

The workspace holds only what your team puts into it. There is no live record integration to disclose.